Any honest supporter of President Bush ought to admit that anti-terrorism efforts in the first year of his presidency were weak and ineffective, and that this contributed to our vulnerability on 9/11. Any honest Democrat would have to admit that in that first year Bush was continuing President Clinton's policy, and that Bush's predecessor had done very little to make life difficult for Al Qaeda. This is what the Democrat's hissy fit over the ABC 9/11 drama is all about. By reminding people of the facts that I have just mentioned, it probably can't hurt Republicans. Dennis Byrne at Real Clear Politics has a summary of Clinton's missed opportunities, from the 9/11 Commission Report.
A good place to look is the report's "Chapter 4: Responses to Al Qaeda's initial assaults," Section 4.5, "Searching for Fresh Options." There you have details of how Bin Laden was ready to be plucked, but someone in the administration either ignored or nixed it. Or put it on an endless "you-decide, not-me" merry-go-round.
For example, the report said the CIA was receiving "reliable" reports that Bin Laden would be in the Sheikh Ali hunting camp in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar until at least midmorning of Feb. 11, 1999. The military was targeting him for a hit with cruise missiles, and only needed a green light. Yet, no missiles were launched, to the disappointment of field agents and the CIA's "Bin Laden" unit. By Feb. 12, Bin Laden had moved on, and the golden opportunity passed.
Still, the CIA hoped that Bin Laden would return to the popular camp, but Richard Clarke, the nation's counterterrorism chief, may have blown it by calling the United Arab Emirate to express his concern about the their officials associating with Bin Laden at the hunting camp. Being no fools, the terrorists within a week had "hurriedly dismantled" and deserted the camp, the report said.
In May, 1999, the report said, the administration may have missed the best and last opportunity to hit Bin Laden with cruise missiles as he was moving in and around Kandahar. "It was a fat pitch, a home run," a senior military official told the commission, confident of the intelligence and the possibility of minimal "collateral damage." The report picks up the story:
"He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, 'We all just slumped.' He told [the commission] he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad game. Bin Laden 'should have been a dead man' that night, he said."
Now it's only fair to note that the Clinton administration didn't know that Bin Laden was about to launch the first serious assault on mainland America since the War of 1812. Still the fact that they were thinking about taking OBL out means that they had some idea of the danger he represented, and did nothing.
More serious in my view was the Clinton/Admin's lame response to the embassy bombings in Africa. As I have pointed out in connection with Jimmy Carter, an attack on an embassy is an attack on American soil. In response Clinton took out an unoccupied terrorist camp in Afghanistan and flattened an aspirin factory in Sudan. Of course by then he had more serious things like stained dresses to worry about.
No wonder the Democrats don't want the half of America that voted Bush twice to be thinking about all this just now.
ps. I haven't read the Miniter book shown above, nor would I endorse the subtitle. It just kinda went with the theme.
Recent Comments